university of cologne department of economic and social psychology the egalitarian ape: welfare...

University of CologneUniversity of Cologne

Department of Economic andDepartment of Economic and

Social PsychologySocial Psychology

The Egalitarian Ape: Welfare State Games and the The Egalitarian Ape: Welfare State Games and the Preference for EqualityPreference for Equality

Sebastian LotzUniversity of Cologne

Detlef FetchenhauerUniversity of Cologne, University of Groningen

2

The typical welfare stateThe typical welfare state

• Economies & societies create wealth which most of them decide to partly redistribute

• Individual members possess different input factors (labor, capital, knowledge) and create a different amounts of wealth

• Redistribution through social security, taxes, donations

• Usually: Cost of Redistribution

3

Welfare state gameWelfare state game

Equality Wealth

Rich 14 26

Middle Class 12 16

Poor 10 2

4


Overall WealthEquality

36Wealth

44

Rich 14 26

Middle Class 12 16

Poor 10 2

5

Motivational FactorsMotivational Factors

1. Maximization of individual payoff

2. Maximization of group payoff (overall wealth)

3. Maximization of equality (due to inequality aversion)

WOLF IN SHEEP‘S CLOTHING; Maximizing individual payoff can be justified by other arguments

6



36Wealth

44

Rich 14 26

Middle Class 12 16

Poor 10 2

Maximization of Equality

7



36Wealth

44

Rich 14 26

Middle Class 12 16

Poor 10 2

Maximization of Overall Payoff


8



36Wealth

44

Rich 14 26

Middle Class 12 16

Poor 10 2Maximization of Individual Payoff



9



36Wealth

44

Rich 14 26

Middle Class 12 16




10



36Wealth

44

Rich 14 26

Middle Class 12 16




11

What others found…What others found…

• As a social good, distributive justice is more attractive than overall wealth (efficiency)(Bolton & Ockenfels, 2002)

• Half of the people prefer the equal distribution in the game, the majority of them however is motivated by pure self-interest (Biniossek & Fetchenhauer, 2007)

12


Equality Wealth

Rich 14 26

Middle Class 12 16

Poor 10 2

Benevolent Dictator (Equality or Wealth?)

13

Experimental DesignExperimental Design

• N = 216 students at the University of Cologne

• Between subjects design

• Random draw decided who‘s decision will be enforced in the group

• Accountability: Students were to write down their argumentation which was distributed among the group members used for qualitative analysis

• 3 ECU = 1 Euro actual payoff, All benevolent dictators participated in a lottery being able to win, 200, 150, or 100 ECU

• Additional questionnaire

14

Results: Decision by PersonResults: Decision by Person

15


16


17


18

Self-rating of morality (7-point scale)Self-rating of morality (7-point scale)

19

Who used fairness-based arguments?Who used fairness-based arguments?

20

Who used wealth-argument?Who used wealth-argument?

21

Hardly any deep thoughts…Hardly any deep thoughts…

22

Who used selfish argumentations?Who used selfish argumentations?

23

Reasoning behind the resultsReasoning behind the results

• Social Intuitist Model

• Fast and automatic intuitions are the primary source of moral evaluations (Haidt, 2001)

• „Do no harm“ – heuristics (intention)

• People hesitate to harm small groups of a society even if a (large) majority benefits

• Inequality aversion (outcome)

• People disregard distributions which unjustifiably put some people better of than others (even if this would yield a Pareto improvement)

24

ImplicationsImplications

• Intuitive fairness/moral judgment is main determinant of the acceptance of socioeconomic policy (Haferkamp et al, 2007)

• Efficiency almost seems irrelevant to the people

• Decisions based on morality do not always seem economically right (repetition of the game, substantial losses of wealth)

25

SummarySummary

• Distributions are not only selected due to maximization of individual payoff

• Accountability might reduce egoism, self-interest

• Generally „fair“ distributions are preferred even if this means to leave money on the table.

• Ambiguity of fairness is not seen

• In reality the fair solution is not as obvious, because wealth has to be compiled, individuals are unequally talented, etc.

university of cologne department of economic and social psychology the egalitarian ape: welfare...

Documents